role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

May 29, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-May-29 (PDF)

L057 - Tue 29 May 2012 / Mar 29 mai 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 29 May 2012 Mardi 29 mai 2012

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WIRELESS SERVICES

AGREEMENTS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LES CONVENTIONS

DE SERVICES SANS FIL

WEARING OF CARNATIONS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

ONTARIO ECONOMY

ONTARIO BUDGET

ONTARIO BUDGET

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

LOBBYISTS

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

FOREST FIRES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

FIRE SAFETY

SEXUAL ASSAULT

SKILLED TRADES

AUTISM TREATMENT

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

JIM KILGOUR

FOREST FIREFIGHTING

FLOODING

BLYTH FESTIVAL

ST. CLAIR KICK IT!

SOMERSET WEST COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

CEMENT ASSOCIATION

OF CANADA

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY

CORRECTION OF RECORD

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

NATIONAL ACCESS

AWARENESS WEEK /

SEMAINE NATIONALE

POUR L’INTÉGRATION

DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES

SCHOOL FACILITIES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR-RAIL LINK

RADIATION SAFETY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

RADIATION SAFETY

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

TOURISM

ONTARIO PLACE

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONG ACTION FOR ONTARIO ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR UNE ACTION

ÉNERGIQUE POUR L’ONTARIO

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please join me in prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WIRELESS SERVICES

AGREEMENTS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LES CONVENTIONS

DE SERVICES SANS FIL

Ms. Best moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 82,

An Act to strengthen consumer protection with respect to consumer agreements relating to wireless services accessed from a cellular phone, smart phone or any other similar mobile device / Projet de loi 82, Loi visant à mieux protéger les consommateurs en ce qui concerne les conventions de consommation portant sur les services sans fil accessibles au moyen d’un téléphone cellulaire, d’un téléphone intelligent ou de tout autre appareil mobile semblable.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Ms. Best.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member from Sault Ste. Marie today.

It certainly is my privilege to rise today for second reading of the Wireless Services Agreements Act, 2012. This bill has been drafted to protect consumers who enter into wireless services agreements for cellphones, smart phones, tablet computers and other mobile communications devices. Our proposed legislation, if passed, will provide greater transparency and stronger protections for Ontario’s consumers and their families when they sign contracts for cellphones and wireless services.

I would like to again thank my colleague Mr. Orazietti, MPP for Sault Ste. Marie, for introducing Bills 133 and 5, which brought the Legislature’s attention to consumer issues respecting wireless services agreements at first instance. Thanks to Mr. Orazietti’s groundwork, several of the concerns I will mention today are already in the minds of members of this House. We must work to ensure that Ontario’s consumers are better protected when it comes to wireless services agreements.

Mr. Speaker, in recent years, there has been an explosion in the use of wireless communications devices. The degree of market saturation, at more than 70% of Ontario’s population, has turned many people into mobile-device dependants, using these devices to stay connected in a multitude of ways, instantly. These wireless plans are mostly post-paid, meaning consumers enter into an agreement before using the service and they get their monthly bill after they have used the service.

I’m talking about Ontario families, including parents and their children, grandparents and students in every city and town in this province—texting, talking, making plans, solving emergencies, sending emails. As a society, we have become dependent on our mobile and wireless devices and the benefits that they provide, through the speed of communication and the efficiency they bring to our lives and how we live our lives.

Perhaps it’s our growing reliance on these devices, with so many people using them and finding they do not understand the services and plans they have on these devices, that has given rise to what we call cell shock. Cell shock, Madam Speaker, is what happens when consumers open their wireless services bills and receive exorbitant charges they were not expecting. Cell shock is what happens when consumers are not aware that they are using services that will add charges to their bills. Cell shock is what happens when consumers get billed for wireless services they did not receive.

And, Madam Speaker, cell shock has resulted in many consumer complaints and concerns about their treatment by wireless services providers.

The Ministry of Consumer Services receives many questions and complaints about cellphones, and since we announced our intention to introduce this proposed legislation, we have heard more and more consumer stories and concerns through Twitter and on Facebook and websites. Last year’s report by the federal Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services, the CCTS, documented more complaints about wireless services than it did for all the other types of telecommunication services combined.

Although there has not been an official report yet released, CCTS has stated that in the first half of 2011-12, wireless services complaints continue to account for 60% of all complaints they receive.

Madam Speaker, it is time to act. We have a responsibility to Ontario’s consumers and their families to ensure that the millions of cellphone agreements signed by Ontario individuals and families each year are clear, comprehensive and easy to understand. We want to help Ontarians make smarter and more informed choices about how they spend their hard-earned dollars.

It is time to act when Ontarians open their wireless services bills and realize they have been charged for services they did not initially agree to. It is time to act when they have been charged for services they did not know would cost them extra. It is time to act when Ontario consumers open their bills to find they have exceeded their minutes without even knowing it. And, Madam Speaker, it is time to act when consumers find their contracts have been extended without their say-so.

Ontarians need clarity. They need to know what wireless services they are getting for their money. They need to be able to understand their agreement in plain language and what is included with the basic fee and what services would result in higher cost. They need to give their express consent before a fixed-term contract is amended, renewed or extended, and they need to know, when a company advertises its prices, that these prices are all-inclusive and include all costs.

This proposed bill is a big step forward in responding to consumer concerns to the issue of cell shock and to the billing practices of wireless services providers.

Madam Speaker, Ontario’s Consumer Protection Act already protects Ontarians from unethical practices such as misrepresentation and billing for unsolicited services. However, more needs to be done in the area of wireless services, and that is precisely the reason we have introduced Bill 82, the Wireless Services Agreements Act, 2012. This proposed legislation complements the Consumer Protection Act and specifically addresses issues unique to wireless services contracts.

Our proposed legislation, if passed, will provide more transparency and stronger protections for Ontario’s consumers and their families when they sign wireless and cellphone contracts. It is designed to empower consumers by ensuring they have the information they need to make informed decisions and that they take control of making these decisions. It will help Ontario families and individuals make informed choices about how they spend their hard-earned dollars.

Madam Speaker, this bill, if passed, will help stop cell shock and help strengthen confidence in the marketplace. It will give people more control over all aspects of wireless contracts, from choice of services to fees payable if they cancel—issues that over 70% of Ontarians deal with on a daily basis.

Madam Speaker, wireless services is an $18-billion industry that pervades all of our lives. The concerns that Ontario consumers have with wireless services contracts have kept pace with, if not surpassed, the growth of the industry to the point where we need to act.

Now I would like to specifically address the benefits of this proposed legislation. Madam Speaker, when we look at provisions in the proposed bill, the benefits to Ontario’s consumers are crystal clear. If passed, this bill will allow customers to cancel their agreements at any time with modest cancellation fees. Four other provinces—Quebec, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia—have introduced similar provisions. With a consistent approach across provinces, we can facilitate greater industry compliance, ultimately benefiting the consumer.

Companies will be required to clearly disclose which services are included in the minimum cost of an agreement as well as the added costs that would be charged when additional services are used. The terms must be clear, comprehensive and prominent, and they must include specific information on roaming charges and cellphone locks.

The proposed bill also requires companies to have agreements that use clear language, with full disclosure, so consumers understand what they are agreeing to. This level of disclosure is essential for consumer protection. Customers must understand what they are getting into before and after they sign their agreements.

Companies will need to get a customer’s express consent before renewing, extending or amending a fixed-term contract. Contracts will no longer be renewed automatically without the customer’s consent. When we look at today’s marketplace, we find that simply asking for a change to an agreement can result in the agreement being extended or renewed. This proposed bill states that agreeing to a change in service is not the same as agreeing to an automatic extension or renewal. The customer must be asked if they want to renew, and the customer must clearly indicate yes before this takes place.

Madam Speaker, we are aiming to reduce cell shock by enforcing all-inclusive price advertising, requiring providers to advertise the total of all costs and fees, disclosed most prominently, in any price advertising. If the all-in price is advertised, there can be no surprises when the bill arrives.

This legislation, if passed, will result in stronger and more enforceable remedies, making it an offence for wireless services providers to charge for payments they are not entitled to. If a service provider owes a refund to a customer, the customer has the right to sue the provider to recover the amount owed to them, and they have the right to claim three times the amount of a refund that is owed.

If this bill is passed, it will offer some of the strictest penalties of all the provinces in Canada. This proposed legislation also prohibits billing for services that a customer cannot use. If a wireless device is not working and is still under warranty, the provider cannot charge for services a customer cannot use because the device is being repaired, nor can they charge for a loaner if one is provided. Many consumers object to paying extra for services they did not know would cost them extra if used.

This proposed legislation requires wireless companies to have a system in place to notify customers when they are close to their usage limits so that the customer is aware that further use may result in additional costs. They must also disclose these cost details to the customer before any agreement is signed.

If this bill is passed, implementation of this legislation will include a strategic enforcement approach and a proactive communications plan to ensure that consumers are fully aware of the changes and know their rights.

Madam Speaker, if this bill becomes law, it will take effect a full six months after royal assent. The six-month implementation period will give companies enough time to prepare their systems to comply with the new legislation.

When it comes into force, if it is passed, the new act will apply to all new agreements. It will also apply to all service contract transactions, like renewals, that may already be in progress. It will also apply to existing contracts that are changed after the date it comes into force, if passed.

We understand that telecommunications is a federal responsibility, while consumer protection is a matter for the provinces. For this reason, the bill focuses exclusively on the consumer aspect of the industry. It focuses on the needs of Ontarians who are considering or who have already signed agreements for wireless cellphone services. The bill, if passed, is designed to protect consumers through clear disclosure requirements and cancellation rights.

Madam Speaker, I can tell you that the government has consulted industry on the development of this bill, and the industry’s message was clear: Any government action must be consistent with actions taken by other provinces. We have listened to the industry’s message, and this bill has been aligned with similar initiatives in other provinces to avoid a patchwork of regulation across the country. We are taking steps, through this proposed legislation, to help consumers make more informed choices when spending their hard-earned dollars.

Madam Speaker, I will be supporting this bill—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Really?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Yes, really, and I am supporting it because I believe that it contains strong measures that will—

Interjection.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I have to reaffirm, you know.

It contains strong measures that will protect consumers and their families. I am certain that all consumers across Ontario are supportive of this initiative, and I look forward to support from the MPP from Sault Ste. Marie as well, and the support of our government measures, as this proposed legislation is a very notable piece of legislation. We are certainly empowering consumers by ensuring that they get the information they need—wake up over there—to make important decisions. This information will help consumers better understand their mobile and wireless services contracts and get the contracts they want.

Madam Speaker, I ask all members of this Legislature to support this legislation to support Ontario’s consumers. Certainly, I look forward to your support.

In concluding, the Ministry of Consumer Services’ mandate is to help inform and protect Ontario’s consumers, and this bill is designed do just that: help Ontario consumers and their families make smarter, more informed choices about the wireless services they have come to depend on. The Wireless Services Agreements Act, 2012, if passed, will build on our government’s commitment to consumer protection, providing more disclosure, fairness and confidence in the marketplace. Empowering and protecting consumers in this area is a priority of the Ministry of Consumer Services as we continue to build on the foundation we have laid in protecting consumers across Ontario.

Madam Speaker, taking this strong action is part of the McGuinty government’s commitment to educating, protecting and serving Ontarians by ensuring a fair and safe marketplace.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. David Orazietti: I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this important legislation this morning. There are a couple of issues that I want to put on the record.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Are you supporting it too?

Mr. David Orazietti: The member opposite wants to know if I’m supporting the legislation—absolutely. And I certainly hope the members opposite will support the legislation because it’s very beneficial to consumers.

I want to commend the minister for her comments this morning. She has done an absolutely fantastic job in leading this legislation through to the point we’re at today and demonstrating her very public support for this. We think this is great legislation for consumers, long overdue. As you’re aware, there are a number of other provinces that are moving forward with this type of legislation.

I do want to go through some of the rationale for the bill, some of the support that has been provided and highlighted publicly, as well as the specific aspects of the legislation that will help to relieve some of the pocketbook pressure that consumers are facing with respect to their wireless service agreements.

Speaker, I think we all have heard from constituents the various horror stories that they have experienced from contracts that they have signed with various cellphone companies across this country. Part of the problem, as we all know, is the very limited competition that exists in this country. In other jurisdictions, competition is broader. Competition brings to bear contracts that are more fair and that offer better prices for consumers. I think part of the challenge here is, with respect to our jurisdictional responsibility, the ability to act on any contract signed in the province of Ontario. We need to take that step.

Clearly, there’s a vacuum at the federal level when it comes to a willingness to step up and protect consumers from what are really arbitrary, one-sided contracts that are imposed on consumers. We have a very limited marketplace at the federal level—absolutely. And the wireless telecom industry, which is represented by the CWTA, has their lobbyists who advocate on behalf of the telecom sector and have successfully convinced the federal government, the CRTC, to maintain a fairly limited market space when it comes to the competition in the country.

As a result, you have mainly three large telecom companies in this country who have divided up their licences into other various brands, and we’re all familiar with those brands. It creates a bit of an illusion of competition in the marketplace in this country, allowing consumers to believe that they really have this broad-ranging choice, when, in fact, they don’t. They’re calling the same call centre for their service; they’re subject to the same contract.

On that point, Speaker, most consumers unfortunately don’t understand the contract and don’t know what’s in their contract. Now, we can certainly place some responsibility on the consumer to understand what it is they’re signing, but when such a large percentage of consumers are unaware of the contract obligations that they have and what is in the contract, it really calls into question what kind of contract they’re signing and whether or not we can make those contracts clearer and written in plain language so that the average consumer has a very clear understanding of what their obligations are.

Those constituents who come to us who are experiencing cell shock—who open their bill and say, “Wow, I’m paying $120 this month. When I saw that price that was advertised, it said $29.99,” or $49.99. We want to make sure that the highest, most prominent price is the all-in price in any advertising.

Let’s talk a little bit about some of the particular aspects of this legislation. First of all, one of the most important things that consumers want addressed is the aspect of cancellation charges and the limitations on those. The companies have contracts for 36 months to purchase a smart phone or an iPhone, whatever it might be. They have you locked in for a fairly lengthy time. The cancellation fees in most other sectors, for most other services, is 30 days’ notice, or you cancel immediately and whatever the remaining balance is on the bill, you pay that and you’re done.

These punitive fees that go on and on and on, month after month—in some cases, we’ve heard stories of consumers saying, “I had to pay a $600 cancellation fee,” or “a $400 cancellation fee.” They are incredibly excessive, and this is the gouging of consumers that we’re talking about.

In the legislation, Speaker, what we are clearly proposing is a $50 cancellation fee. An individual can call up and cancel their contract; they would be subject to a $50 cancellation fee or 10% of the remaining balance, whichever is less. So the maximum could be $50. Now, we’re obviously not saying that if an individual walks into a store, purchases a smart phone that’s $500 and gets that phone for $99, that three months later they can cancel and walk away with that hardware or that equipment. That is not the intent of the bill.

Obviously, the individual needs to make good for the balance of the cost of the hardware. But with respect to the contract, which is separate, as we say, in most other industry standards and practices, that cancellation fee should be limited or capped. We’re proposing $50 or a maximum 10% of the remaining balance. That addresses the incredible challenge of dealing with cancellation fees in these contracts that are really one-sided.

The second item I want to raise, Speaker, is with respect to automatic renewal and express consent of the consumer. What consumers have told us very clearly is that with respect to their contracts, if they make the slightest change, if they make a minor change in their contract, they all of a sudden find themselves in another three-year agreement. They might be in their 32nd, 34th, 35th month of their contract, and it may be about to expire, and they change jobs and they need a conference calling feature on their phone or they decide to add one of their children to their plan.

So the company will say, “That’s great. No problem. We can make that change, and you are now renewed for another 36 months, subject to all of the cancellation fees that we now have put in place.”

Express consent is not really something that is available to consumers. This is an important change. Consumers obviously, as we’ve said, need to be aware of what’s in their contract, but clearly a large percentage of consumers are not. We’ll get at that issue as well. But with respect to these automatic renewal efforts that are made by the companies to continue to lock people into this perpetual monthly fee and payment process, we need to stand up for consumers when it comes to these types of contracts.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Sounds like negative-option billing to me.

Mr. David Orazietti: It certainly does. The member from Peterborough referred to negative-option billing, those types of approaches by companies that disadvantage consumers or that really push the limits of what is acceptable and fair in a contract arrangement.

We also, Speaker, want to see greater disclosure and clarity with respect to the contract, and that has to do with the specific language of the contract: the length of the contract, the complexity of the contract. This is a phone; it shouldn’t be a mortgage. The contracts need to be much clearer, much more plain and much more understandable for the average consumer out there, and they simply are not. We want to ensure that the onus is on the service provider to take reasonable efforts to make sure that the customer knows what they are paying for and what they are getting in return.

We also want to make sure that all optional and all mandatory services included in the contractual arrangement are provided up front: mandatory services like 911 emergency access fees, sometimes called the “government fee”—Michael Janigan made an interesting comment about that—typically a charge of 50 to 75 cents a month, called the “government regulatory recovery fee”; the optional services, things like voicemail, call display, any of those optional services and the charges for those services; as well as any one-time fees, such as an initiation fee or activation fee or other set-up fees.

Those all need to be clearly disclosed to the consumer so we get that all-in start-up price and avoid the sticker shock or the cell shock that consumers are presently facing. Agreements need to be in clear and plain language, and anything that costs extra needs to be identified. We’ve broken some of those down, as well as things like long distance rate plans and any of those additional charges.

If a phone is provided for free, or at a discount, the agreement must also include the retail value of the phone at the time of the purchase for consumers so that they understand very clearly, if they were to terminate that contract, what the additional cost would be to purchase the balance of the hardware, that actual phone. That needs to be provided up front so there are no surprises later on. The same would apply to any discounts or any promotional prices; they would be made clear—for example, free early-evening calling, but it’s only free early-evening calling for six months and then after six months, guess what, there’s a new price.

So these measures that are in these contracts and the fine print, this is getting at disclosing some of the strategies that are used by companies to drive up the cost of cellphones in the province of Ontario. We need to be clear that it is important to disclose those costs. Contracts need to be written and presented in such a way that the consumer understands what they’re signing and certainly what their responsibilities are.

Let’s talk a little bit about advertising for cellphone plans, because this is another important aspect that has been included in the bill. The idea here is certainly to ensure that the advertising and promotional material that is out there, that is being marketed to consumers, includes the total and complete prices. So the supplier needs to ensure that the advertisement also contains a prominent statement of the total cost to consumers, on a monthly or periodic basis, of all services to be provided in the agreement.

So if it’s $29.99, if it’s $49.99, what does that include? What’s extra? What’s additional? What are you going to get charged for later? What are the start-up fees? What fees are going to change after 90 days, when you’re outside of that store and you’re at home and you are on that phone, so when you get your bill you’re aware that that’s going to be the case? For example, a supplier could not exclusively advertise $20 social networking if that product and price are only part of a service bundle. They would have to disclose that information, and they would be obliged to convey the true monthly cost of the plan included in that particular feature.

There are many ways of marketing, and those marketing experts that are alive and well in the telecom sector are doing their utmost to promote their product and also promote ways in which consumers will sign up for and purchase their phones long-term. It’s important that we make sure there’s full disclosure and, again, transparency to ensure consumers are aware of what they’re getting.

Prohibiting providers from charging consumers for services while devices are under warranty and are being repaired: We think this is an important aspect with respect to this service. At present, a consumer may purchase a fairly expensive phone, or perhaps a not-so-expensive phone, but the reality is that, generally speaking, for the first year it’s under warranty.

So if there’s a malfunction of that phone, not of the consumer’s doing—you didn’t leave it out in the rain on the picnic table—and you bring it back to the provider and it is in fact something that is technologically wrong with the phone from the provider, at present, the company can continue to send you a bill every month although you might not have the use of your phone.

Now, in some cases the store, the company, could decide to give you a loaner phone, a replacement of like or similar comparison for you to use in the meantime, and in that way you would still have access to your service and they could still send you your bill. I think most people would agree that that would be fair and reasonable.

However, the customer service agents who deal with consumers and are part of these companies are educated in when and when not to provide these particular products for consumers, and not in all cases will an individual receive the opportunity to have a phone and could still be billed. So we want to make it crystal clear in the legislation that if you surrender your phone to your provider and there is something wrong with the phone—it’s not working properly—you cannot be billed by the company for that period of time for which you do not have use of that phone. We think that’s an important aspect of the legislation.

We also want to ensure that suppliers are giving notice to consumers who are about to incur additional charges for various services that are part of their phones. We’re talking about voice, data and texting plans, the components that make up the charges on your cellphone. There are ways for companies to do this and to ensure that this is taking place. Some companies have made efforts to ensure that individuals can go online and they can check their monthly usage; they’re able to kind of monitor that. It’s not the most convenient thing when you’re out, but there are some efforts being made in that regard.

That’s positive. The efforts that companies can make to send a message to the consumer that they’re about to exceed their limits is helpful, and it will get at that bill shock. It also would be good business practice, because it will reduce the level of consumer complaints, the level of concern expressed by consumers about the charges that are being incurred.

This issue was raised as well—the issue around roaming charges and dealing with roaming charges outside of the particular home jurisdiction. There are some concerns with respect to this because, for example, if you take your phone and you are in another jurisdiction—let’s say you’re in the US and you’re on a US network. It’s difficult to compel your provider here in Canada to inform you of the charges you’re incurring because you’re roaming. They might tell you that you’re out of your jurisdiction, and after that you’re on your own.

Everyone, I think, has heard stories about individuals who expressed concern about those very, very significant roaming charges. Those are costs borne by you as the consumer for using the communications towers and equipment of another provider. Obviously, we cannot provide somewhere in the legislation for that requirement to be made. However, within our jurisdiction we can certainly do that, and when you leave the jurisdiction you can certainly get notices that indicate that, “You’re now roaming, and here is the charge and here are the fees.” Some of that is happening. We want to make sure that all companies are abiding by this. That’s the reason for putting it in the legislation.

Just on that point, Speaker, I should highlight that some companies have indicated to us quite clearly that they are taking some of these steps and that this legislation is, in fact, unnecessary. What I would say to that, Speaker, is that if the companies are taking these steps, then they won’t mind if this legislation is passed to support consumers, because they’re already doing that. So let’s be clear that not all companies are following what is in this proposed legislation. We need to make sure that they are. For those companies that are showing some leadership on this in working to protect consumers, that’s great; they’re going to be ahead of the curve and ready when changes come about.

As part of a remedy in the legislation, we’ve proposed the right to triple recovery. There are instances where individuals have the right to recover funds or fees that have been charged to them. Companies have not always been as co-operative and as understanding as they could be, and, frankly, as fair with consumers as they need to be. So if there’s a breach in the act and there’s overcharging of consumers, we’re going to make it mandatory within the legislation that the consumer will have the right to recover damages three times what has been charged or what they’re seeking.

We think that’s an effective tool for consumer protection. We think it gives consumers the ability to rightly recover fees that have been unfairly charged to them.

It also accounts for, quite frankly, their hassle, their inconvenience, their time of having to deal with this issue and this matter. You know what happens when you don’t pay your cellphone bill on time. You know the way the companies treat you. You know what happens to your fees, your interest charges, the notices you get, and the like. We think it’s fair and reasonable that consumers be offered in legislation some ability to have similar remedies at their disposal as well.

I just want to highlight a couple of the relevant reasons and examples as to why the measures that are provided in the legislation are absolutely necessary. In a recent study, a 2010 study of the New America Foundation—

Mr. Jeff Leal: That’s a good one.

Mr. David Orazietti: To the member from Peterborough, it’s great. The New America Foundation (2010) took a look at the three components of your cellphone bill, so voice, data, text, those components that make up your cellphone bill, and took a look at Canada, Denmark, Finland, Hong Kong, India, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, Taiwan, the US and the UK; a pretty good cross-section, comparison of communities, a pretty good—

Mr. Jeff Leal: A comprehensive study.

Mr. David Orazietti: —a comprehensive study, pretty thoughtful, and a broad range of countries included in this. Out of the 11 countries surveyed in this study, take a guess which country had the highest charges for voice, data and text, out of 11 countries?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Canada.

Mr. David Orazietti: Absolutely. The member from Peterborough says “Canada.” That is absolutely right.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Passed the test.

Mr. David Orazietti: And not by a little bit; we’re not just marginally above other jurisdictions when it comes to these costs. We are substantially higher than other jurisdictions. So we certainly feel that there are measures which are contained in the bill, Speaker, that we believe need to be passed immediately to help support consumers.

This is important research. It gives us a bit of a barometer in terms of what’s taking place in other jurisdictions, and we think it’s important to move forward on this.

I also want to reference a couple of organizations that have stepped forward. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre, in a report by Michael Janigan, highlights the practice of extra charges in the Canadian telecommunications industry whereby suppliers of consumer products and services segregate part of their cost as a separate charge and add them into the final price. He describes the system access fees levied by the wireless companies as “charges concocted by the wireless companies to appear as a government-mandated fee.”

The Consumers Council of Canada in 2010 reported the most prevalent consumer complaints relating to wireless plans, including complaints about access fees, charges for incoming text messaging, the availability of call detail records, billing inaccuracies, expiry policies, prepaid wireless cards, hidden fees and contract termination rules. The examples, and the sector, are really calling for changes—certainly those individuals that are interested in acting on behalf of consumers.

In Europe in 2010, the wireless service providers were required to implement a mechanism to protect consumers from high roaming charges while travelling to other EU countries and travelling abroad. We think there are a number of other important measures that have been taken by other jurisdictions that would benefit consumers here.

In October 2010, the US Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, proposed that wireless carriers be required to notify users by text or voicemail if they’re about to go over their allotted monthly voice minutes, data or texting. So, clearly, there are other jurisdictions that are leading on this, and there are companies, as I say, that are taking similar action, which is helpful.

Here’s specifically what Michael Janigan said, the executive director and general counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, somebody who has built a career in consumer protection, someone who has stood up for consumers on a wide array of measures and legislation: “This bill will help remove barriers to real competition for ordinary consumers of wireless services.” And he said, “It will help level the playing field for customers who currently feel trapped by … one-sided conditions.” That’s important; I think it speaks volumes.

Mel Fruitman, who’s the vice-president of the Consumers’ Association of Canada—here’s what he said: “For a long time consumers have been victims of the nefarious marketing practices of wireless telephone companies. This protection for consumers is necessary and long overdue. We can see no reason why this act would not receive all-party support and be quickly passed.” That’s Mel Fruitman, Consumers’ Association of Canada.

Don Mercer, who is the president of the Consumers Council of Canada—here’s what Mr. Mercer said: “Contracts for cellular voice and data services and equipment rate as top-10 sources of consumer complaints in Ontario. Many consumers feel their rights are unfairly limited and find it hard to understand their responsibilities under these agreements. Quebec has exercised its authority for contracts in this area. Now this bill in Ontario proposes action as well. Provinces across Canada should take responsibility and prompt action, and ultimately work toward a nationally harmonized approach that recognizes today’s consumers are highly mobile.”

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Strong action.

Mr. David Orazietti: The member from Northumberland says, “Strong action.” I totally agree. He’s on the mark.

“The Consumers Council of Canada encourages members of the Ontario Legislature to seriously engage this bill as a practical measure.” That’s Don Mercer from the Consumers Council of Canada.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Any relation to Rick Mercer?

Mr. David Orazietti: I don’t believe so.

Ric Borski, president and CEO of the Better Business Bureau, midwestern Canada and central Ontario region—here’s what Mr. Borski said: “The Better Business Bureau ... has received more complaints about cellular phone services and supplies in Canada during 2010 than any other issue. The BBB supports in principle any provisions that enhance marketplace transparency and promote better business practices.”

Speaker, I think it’s quite clear from the steps that are proposed in the legislation that they seek to address what I have as part of the communication that I’m receiving from thousands of individuals across the province of Ontario, who have sent us correspondence with various remarks and complaints and suggestions on how to make the cellphone and telecom industry and the contracts that are signed in the province of Ontario better.

I want to also commend Tom Harrington, CBC Marketplace. He has done an absolutely fantastic job highlighting the issues in the cellphone industry. He had a special on this—this was some time ago—“Canada’s Worst Cellphone Bill.” In the program, he highlighted the specific contractual arrangements by the companies that are designed to drive revenue, keep people in their contracts—that are not clear enough, that are not balanced enough.

There was such uptake in that program and such a positive response to hearing more about that that he followed it up with another program, and “Canada’s Worst Cellphone Bill, the Sequel,” aired as well on CBC. So Mr. Harrington has done a good job of raising awareness.

A number of other organizations, as I’ve highlighted, have raised the issue. Speaker, I think it speaks volumes to the height of awareness in the sector on this issue. With roughly seven million cellphone consumers in the province of Ontario, our government is going to clearly stand on the side of those consumers and say, “We want change; we need change.”

I want to speak just briefly about the environment in which we find ourselves in this sector, because we all know what’s in the bill. We’ve read the bill. We’re clear with the provisions in the bill—and I should add, there’s one other item in here: that there’s regulatory power for unlocking. In some jurisdictions around the world, you can’t sell a cellphone if it’s locked. In Canada, the phones are sold locked, and you can’t take that phone to another provider even if they have the same technology where you could use that technology and that phone.

As you know, there are different networks—GSM, CDMA—and the companies have these phones locked. So now they’re proposing that they’ll unlock the phone, but—guess what?—it’s going to cost you 50 bucks to unlock the phone. It’s just another way to gouge consumers, another way to find a mechanism to charge you. There is a provision in the legislation that would allow the regulatory power to deal with unlocking, and we certainly support that and are certainly pleased with it.

Getting back to the environment around which we find ourselves—because, again, we’re all clear with what’s in the legislation; we know what steps we’re taking or proposing to take to protect consumers. The point is—and I will hear from the opposition shortly on this, and they may say that this needs to be done at the federal level, because telecom is federal jurisdiction. Granted, and I would prefer not to see a patchwork of provincial legislation.

However, that being said, I would suggest that we not sit back and not act in the absence of waiting for the federal government to impose regulations to address this matter. This is far too important to millions of people in the province of Ontario.

Quite frankly, we start to hear now, “Oh, we’ll review our voluntary code of conduct.” That’s what we’ve got. We’ve got the Canadian Wireless Telecom Association, represented by Bernard Lord, who basically is lobbying the CRTC to keep the licensing spectrum narrow, to maintain this monopolistic-type environment, to not broaden the competition. The reality is that we’re being proactive on this issue, and some people would say, “Hey, it’s been way too long.” They’d say, “Hardly proactive.” They’d say, “What have you been doing? Look at what’s been going on in the sector.”

For some people to say, “Hang on, you don’t need to do this. This is something you don’t need to act on. We’ll get at it. We’ll up the standards on our voluntary code of conduct”—hogwash, right? Absolutely unlikely. They will not do anything unless we step up and legislate on this matter with respect to contracts.

Now, where are we going with this? Well, we may see other provinces—Quebec, as of 2010, has legislation, the first province in the country to put in place legislation to address some of the challenges, the contract renewal issues, the cancellation fees. Their legislation in Quebec, to be clear, is similar in many ways, but it is not as comprehensive as what is being proposed here today. Manitoba is tracking toward implementing legislation, and we’re hearing that Newfoundland is in the process as well.

So, clearly, Canadian jurisdictions, Canadian provinces, are seized with this issue, in part because of the tremendous feedback they’re getting from consumers complaining about these issues and the contracts, that it is imperative, it is crucial, for the provinces to step up and, within their constitutional, jurisdictional authority to regulate contracts in the province, to say that, quite frankly, we’re not going to take it anymore, and we need to make sure that these contracts are fair and balanced and we’re standing up for the consumers.

I would encourage and I would welcome any effort made by the federal government to pass legislation that would help to protect consumers in this regard, and there are companies out there that I believe would enter the marketplace, that would help to create a fair playing field, fair prices for consumers, and deal with what we see in these studies comparing Canada to other jurisdictions being so out of whack on this. We need better and fairer pricing in this sector in this country.

We talk about the infrastructure that goes in to paying for this. Consumers are paying for it dearly—absolutely—and while we have massive geography and a relatively smaller population in comparison to some other jurisdictions, I would suggest that the population in this country is relatively focused in certain areas. They say roughly 80% of the people in this country live within 200 miles of the US border.

We have major metropolitan areas in other provinces that make up large percentages of their provinces, so the argument that we need to charge higher rates, that the geography is so massive, and we have a smaller population—I don’t buy that. I also don’t buy the punitive measures that are in this legislation.

So while some of the opposition members may say that we need to go further—I’m certainly prepared to hear and entertain those comments and those concerns that are raised—I think the proposed legislation that’s on the table here makes great strides. It’s the most comprehensive in the country, I would suggest, and so if there are suggestions from members opposite in terms of how we can improve this legislation, by all means.

Concerns that have been raised by the sector: I want to just address this briefly. The concerns that have been raised by the sector, things like, “Well, this will add to the bureaucratic, contractual complexities of the contract in the sector.

And as a result of you doing this and passing legislation, with the mind that passing legislation must mean more regulations”—when in fact we’re talking about reducing costs, and we can give some examples about how those changes are completely legislatively and bureaucratically neutral when it comes to adding to the paperwork and the pressures that companies might want to hide behind. Because the companies will say, “The province of Ontario wants to wade into this on a contractual issue. They want to pass additional legislation.

That’s going to create a regulatory burden, and we’re going to have to find a way to gouge the consumers some more to pay for this kind of legislation.” You know what? That is absolutely garbage.

So just to be clear, right now, if in the contract it says that your cancellation fee is going to equal $400, and we change that contract to say that it’s going to be 50 bucks as a maximum, can someone please tell me how that’s going to add to the regulatory burden for consumers? That’s the kind of argument that is being put forward by companies who suggest that we’re going to somehow add to the regulatory burden and it’s going to be too complex. We’re talking about simplifying these contracts. We’re talking about plain language. We’re talking about contracts that are more fair and more balanced.

We’re not talking about additional regulatory burden that they want to hide behind to find a way to gouge consumers some more. That’s just really not on. These are contracts that are—what we’re proposing would be easy to comply to.

The reality is, the companies, frankly, don’t like it because they want to be able to find ways to charge consumers more. When we compare to other jurisdictions, there’s no reason why consumers need to be charged more. They’re being charged more than their fair share right now. Companies will charge as much as the market will bear. Right now, with the protections offered to them with the federal arrangement, with the lack of interest by the federal government to open this up and to start issuing more licences to create a more competitive environment by which consumers can sign these contracts, consumers will continue to be gouged.

So our choice is clear. We can stand by; we can watch as consumers face these contracts and get these horrendous bills. We can sit on our hands. We can do nothing. We can say, “This is federal responsibility. Telecom is all in the jurisdiction of the federal government, and there is no aspect whatsoever of anything signed in the province of Ontario that consumers face that is in any way part of provincial jurisdiction. It’s all federal. Let them deal with it. If they’re going to just allow companies to continue to charge people these rates, so be it.”

Well, on this side of the House, we don’t think that’s right. We don’t think that’s fair.

Mr. Jeff Leal: We have a different view.

Mr. David Orazietti: We have a different view. I don’t want to say a different view, necessarily, from the opposition, because I do want to acknowledge that on two previous occasions, Bills 133 and Bill 5, two private member’s bills I introduced to do this, support came from the opposition, so I want to recognize the support of both the NDP members that spoke in favour of the legislation and supported it on second reading debate and also members in the Conservative caucus who stood up in this Legislature, spoke in favour of it and supported this.

As I think it’s something that’s common to all of us—I think basic protection for consumers, when it comes to matters like this, they cross party lines. They’re an issue that we can all get behind and we can all support, certainly when we see such glaringly obvious issues in the sector.

Again, we’ve got a choice. We’ve got an opportunity here where we can either sit back and—you know, not all provinces have decided to act. There’s only one province in this country today that has stepped up and said, “We think we need to offer more protection for consumers because of the lack of competition at the federal level and the unwillingness to open up the marketplace to allow this competition to see fairer contracts, better prices, and prices that compare to many other jurisdictions around the world.” That’s really what we’re looking for. So the solution to this, aside from legislation, is doing that.

If the federal government chooses to do that, that’s great, that’s fantastic. We welcome that. We’d like to see more companies in the market.

We heard the other day—we were at the Standing Committee on General Government. The NDP has an insurance review. We’re looking at that; all parties are concerned about that as well. A fiscal representative, Phil Howell, came to the committee, and he said, “There are 100 insurance companies in the province of Ontario, and we want to make sure there’s a robust sector so that it offers consumers better value and more competition.”

Mr. Jeff Leal: Choice.

Mr. David Orazietti: Choice is good in the marketplace. It’s the polar opposite in the telecom sector, right? You’ve got these telecom giants that create these subsidiary brands that create this illusion of competition that really doesn’t exist.

Back to the point: We’ve got a choice. We can either sit back, we can sit on our hands, we can ignore this issue; we can deny that this is happening to consumers who continue to walk into our offices. We all know that. Everybody here has had somebody talk to them about that, and the examples are horrendous. Or we can take some action. We can decide that we’re going to be a leader in this country on this issue. We’re going to step up. We’re going to do the right thing and we are going to exercise within the Constitution our jurisdictional ability to protect consumers with respect to these unfair contracts.

I implore all members of this Legislature to support what is a very progressive piece of legislation, a forward-thinking piece of legislation, legislation that offers support to consumers, much-needed relief, long-overdue relief for consumers, levelling the playing field, creating a more fair and balanced practice. We want to work with those companies, but we need some cooperation, and right now, it’s all one-sided. For the companies that are moving forward and taking these steps, great. For those that aren’t, we’ve got news for you.

We want to see this passed as soon as possible because things need to change in this sector. So I want to encourage all members in the Legislature today to support this legislation. We think it’s responsible legislation. It’s the right thing to do. We know that there are other jurisdictions that are watching Ontario, that are taking a look at what Ontario is doing on this, and I have every faith in them that they will step up for consumers in their province as well. If that’s what it takes to get some action, to bring the prices down to get fairness for consumers, that’s what we want to see. I want all members to support the legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Questions and comments.

Mr. Jim McDonell: We’ve been looking forward to this bill for some time. The cellular industry in Canada is an important industry and very popular. It has really taken off in the last number of years, but there needs to be some regulation. We were hoping that the federal government would do it because there’s no question that the larger the extent that it’s done, the better for the consumer. We want to make sure that we aren’t putting regulations in that will actually drive up costs.

We are a different market. Here, as compared to Europe, our population in this country per square mile is a fraction of what it is in these larger jurisdictions, so one would expect costs to be up. But we’re looking for the best deal we can get for consumers. I think that in the absence of what we are seeing on the federal side, there needs to be some intervention. There needs to be some review through the committee to compare it with some of our other provinces that have gone before us.

Quebec and Manitoba in particular had two bills before us, so we can look at and review and look at the merits of what they’ve done and the results. As I say, the last thing we want to do is to put in restrictions that will only drive up costs or put conditions in place that, in the end, negatively affect the public.

As we know, the youth of this country are really absorbing the cell coverage and the cellphone options, and we only know that it’s evolved so fast that it’s hard to call it evolution. So now it’s time to look at it and take a chance and make sure that we do this right and, as well, look to our federal government in Ottawa to make sure that they follow through, because overall, the best plan is a national plan.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Mr. Paul Miller: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d just like to stand and say that we’re happy to support this bill. I also would like to commend the member from Sault Ste. Marie for bringing this forward. It’s an important issue, and we’re certainly very happy that people are going to be protected under the Consumer Protection Act, but this isn’t the only category that government should be looking at. They should be looking at hydro. They should be looking at heat. There are all kinds of other areas where there are these hidden charges that people are really paying through the nose, so to speak.

This is a good start, but there’s lots more to do, because I think if we can get into these hidden charges in a lot of these categories, we’re going to save the consumer and the public a lot of money.

I’m hoping, when it gets to second reading and it goes to committee, that the government will finally listen to some of the opposition members when they bring good points forth to committee, because in the last five years, frankly, I haven’t had any amendments—maybe half an amendment out of the hundreds we’ve put in—that have even been entertained by the government.

So I’m hoping under this minority government that they realize that we have an important role to play when it comes to committee and they’ll listen to what we actually say and actually do something and add amendments, because there are a lot of good suggestions that come from this side that go under the carpet because of political games. That’s unfortunate because I certainly believe that we have a lot to add to this conversation, and I certainly have been exposed to these charges over the years, whether it’s hydro, heat, insurance, you name it.

There are a lot of charges that—people are, frankly, being milked in this province. We probably pay some of the highest situations in the whole country.

So I’m hoping that this bill does go forward, and I hope that we can certainly put some good recommendations in there, Madam Speaker, because I think it’s a good way to go.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Today, I think we heard very informative and detailed speeches from the Minister of Consumer Services and, of course, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, who has long been an advocate for consumers right across this province—if you look at his history since he has been here, since 2003—bringing forward a number of bills that provide for consumer protection.

I know the member for Sault Ste. Marie always asks himself this key question every day: What have you done for the little guy lately? This piece of legislation does a lot for the little guy, because in these two speeches this morning—he certainly lifted the veil of secrecy that has surrounded the oligopoly that many of these cellphone providers and wireless operators have provided far too long in the province of Ontario.

You know, Madam Speaker, we’ve seen a tremendous shift over the last decade. Traditionally in Ontario, people relied upon land lines for one of their major means of communication with others. But we’ve had this evolution, some would say a revolution, over the last decade, where people are using iPods, cellphones and other sophisticated telecommunications devices.

This morning, the minister and the member for Sault Ste. Marie have certainly highlighted areas where the public really needs to be protected. This negative-option billing, these hidden charges and these roaming charges really is gouging.

This is a very important piece of legislation. It’s part of the consumer protection initiative that we’ve had in several other areas. We dealt with people going door to door with natural gas contracts for home heating, people going door to door with electricity contracts. This is a great bill that should be passed right away.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to make a short comment on Bill 82 this morning.

I will give credit to the member for Sault Ste. Marie. This has been an issue that he has been very interested in. We were both elected in 2003. He has certainly been an advocate for doing something with respect to cellphone billings and clarifying and putting some clarity into the contracts. So I do support him on that.

I hope that, maybe if this bill passes, we’ll be able to take a closer look at some of those cellphone bills down at that Ornge air ambulance service. If we get a select committee on Ornge, we’ll be able to take a closer look at it, because I’m sure that those cellphone bills down there are about as out of whack as everything else was. I see the House leader here, and I would hope that he would give us that select committee on Ornge that they’ve been promising for so long.

But I digress, Speaker, and I do want to speak to the bill for a moment. The world has changed so dramatically. I mean, I can recall when the phone in our house was one that you had to crank to get the operator up in the old Bell house up where the library is in Barry’s Bay now, and she’d come on the line and ask who you wanted to talk to. Our number was 126 at home, and you would have to then say who you wanted to talk to, but you didn’t dial up. We never got dial telephones in Barry’s Bay until 1967.

Hon. John Milloy: Were you born then?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yeah, I was born then. I was a veteran by then.

The world has changed. Everybody has got a cellphone today. For some people, that’s the only phone they have. They don’t even have a home phone anymore. So it’s pretty ubiquitous. Everybody has got one, and I think it is time to maybe take a look at some of the rules and regulations surrounding them and clarifying the billing, because there are too many people—they think everything is going along hunky-dory, and at the end of the month, they get a bill and they say, “Oh, my word, where did this come from? This is unbelievable.” It is time—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you.

The member for Sault Ste. Marie has two minutes to respond.

Mr. David Orazietti: Just to wrap up, I appreciate the comments from members opposite and take to heart those concerns around the committee process. I’m certainly looking forward to the committee process. I think it will be very enlightening to see some of the folks who will come forward, who we’ll have the opportunity to ask questions of during presentations.

Obviously, we’ll consider suggestions that could be made by the opposition or amendments that could be proposed to this legislation, anything that could strengthen this that we have the jurisdictional ability—and I use that caveat because there are probably some other things that people want to see done, but that there are some jurisdictional issues with, in moving forward.

I certainly want to see this bill made as strong as we could possibly make it and ensure that there is a balance. We’re not looking to negatively disadvantage those businesses in the sector, but quite frankly, the industry has got a problem and—the word was used, but yes—the industry needs an intervention, big time. This is a challenge.

When you take a look at the emails and the correspondence from citizens across this province and you look at the issues that they’re raising, and you compare the rates and the services that are provided in a litany of other jurisdictions for those components that make up your cellphone bill—the voice, data and texting components—it’s quite clear that we are being overcharged and consumers are being gouged in this province.

We can make these contracts better, we can make them clearer and we can make them more fair. There are other areas that I think we can look at as well when it comes to consumer protection measures, and I’m certainly supportive of doing that. But with respect to Bill 82, this is an important piece of legislation. It is legislation that is leading in the country, because there’s only one jurisdiction that has this type of measure. I want to encourage all members to support it. Thank you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. This House stands recessed until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

WEARING OF CARNATIONS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Nickel Belt on a point of order.

M me France Gélinas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe we have unanimous consent for every member of this House to wear a red carnation in honour of Multiple Sclerosis Day at Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member has asked for unanimous consent. Agreed? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’m pleased to welcome to the Legislature today the following members, who are at Queen’s Park for Niagara Week: Gary Burroughs, regional chair of Niagara; Brian McMullan, mayor, city of St. Catharines; Brian Baty, regional councillor, Pelham; Tim Rigby, regional councillor, St. Catharines; Bruce Timms, regional councillor, St. Catharines; Dave Lepp, regional councillor, town of Niagara-on-the-Lake; Mike Trojan, CAO, Niagara region; Ken Brothers, commissioner, public works; Katherine Chislett, commissioner, community services; Patrick Robson, commissioner, planning; Matt Robinson, chief of staff, regional chair’s office.

We welcome you to Queen’s Park and invite everybody to go to the best reception that’s held each time each year, and that is the Niagara reception, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., rooms 228 and 230.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today my daughter Linda Milligan’s class from Percy Centennial Public School, of Warkworth, Ontario.

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to introduce representatives from the MS Society who have come to visit a number of us at Queen’s Park. I have Mrs. Susan Latter, Mrs. Deanna Groetzinger, and a good friend of mine, Laurel Ireland. In your gallery, Mr. Speaker, we also have Sharon Segal, who is lucky enough to be in your gallery. Thank you, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Dipika Damerla: I’d like to join my colleagues in welcoming a number of people from the MS Society, but in particular, Gaby Mammone, who’s from my riding. Welcome, and thank you for coming.

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to welcome the grades 7 to 10 classes from Pathfinder Christian School in Wallenstein, who are visiting Queen’s Park today and sitting in the gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I want to introduce Sinead Anderson. Sinead originally comes from Napanee, attends the University of Ottawa and has worked in my community office for the last couple of years. Sinead, welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I want to recognize a special guest here from Beamsville today. I’m very proud that Anthonie Korstanje is one of the pages in this session of the Legislature. Anthonie is joined today by his father, Joe Korstanje, and his brother Josh in the members’ gallery. Welcome here from Beamsville today.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am absolutely delighted to welcome, in the Speaker’s gallery, Mr. Joe Bush and his students from Our Lady of the Rosary Catholic school. This is an annual event, and we’re delighted to have Mr. Bush and his students here with us again.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to welcome members of the MS Society from Durham: Mike Roche, Fanuel Ephraim and Gaby Mammone.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’d like to introduce members of the board and executive leadership team from the Cement Association of Canada, here with us today in the east members’ gallery: President Michael McSweeney, Erik Madsen, Bob Cartmel, Bill Galloway, Francesco Carantani, Adam Hayashi, Steve Morrissey and Gary Molchan.

Also, I’d like to invite all members to attend their Cement Mixer reception, beginning at 5 o’clock in the legislative dining room.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I’d like to welcome two of my constituents, Marilyn Wooldridge and her daughter Timber Wooldridge. They’re here today to observe the proceedings in question period.

Mr. Mario Sergio: Firgrove Public School sits in the middle of my wonderful area of Jane and Finch, and I have the pleasure today of welcoming teachers, parents and grade 8s, and I wish them a wonderful stay at Queen’s Park and a wonderful tour. I want to wish them a welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to also welcome members from the cement industry, from St Marys specifically: Martin Vroegh, and John Vanderpas, the senior vice-president. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just wanted to introduce two interns who are working with me this summer: Jordan Lazarus, in my aboriginal affairs office, and Nick Wall, in my municipal affairs and housing office.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I just want to introduce Jevan Punia, who will be joining us in the Legislature shortly. She’ll be serving as my intern and comes from the wonderful riding of Brampton–Springdale.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I would like to introduce, from St. Thomas, Cathy Topping from the MS Society in St. Thomas. Welcome, Cathy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In the members’ gallery, we have Coreen Chisholm, from the riding of Don Valley East, to see her daughter, page Dana, in action. We welcome you to Queen’s Park.

In the Speaker’s gallery, from the great riding of Brant, we have with us today Lisa Bishop, a Rotarian; Nancy Lasko, a Rotarian; and all the way from New Zealand, 17-year-old Rotary International exchange student Leigh Bathgate, who is here visiting us. Thank you for joining us.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As you can see, it’s full, so I’ve got a couple of more.

We have with us in the Speaker’s gallery the parliamentary interns from the Quebec National Assembly. Please join me in warmly welcoming Marie-Joëlle Carbonneau, Olivier Côté, François Gagnon, André-Yanne Parent and Ludovic Soucisse, here today to visit us and visit the interns here. Welcome.

We also have in the gallery today Her Holiness Amma Karunamayi, who has been recognized internationally for her commitment to providing welfare programs to underprivileged people living in India. Welcome.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would like at this time to ask our pages to assemble for their introduction. Our new pages are here.

From Mississauga–Erindale, Sherry Aslam; from Prince Edward–Hastings, Alexander Bossio; from Haldimand–Norfolk, Annaleise Carr; from Don Valley East, Dana Chisholm; from Parkdale–High Park, Kyra Colbert; from Richmond Hill, Angela Feng; from Timiskaming–Cochrane, Daxime Genier; from Don Valley West, Stavroula Georgiadis; from Scarborough–Rouge River, Tameem Hassan; from Kitchener–Conestoga, Andrew Hutton; from Kitchener Centre, Andrew Johnson; from Pickering–Scarborough East, Rumesa Khan; from Niagara West–Glanbrook, Anthonie Korstanje; from Oakville, Mateo Molinaro; from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, Katie Mowat; from York South–Weston, Gopi Patel; from Scarborough Southwest, Tameem Quader; from London North Centre, Kendra Squire; from Kitchener–Waterloo, Sam Sun; from Sarnia–Lambton, Hannah Symington; from York–Simcoe, Louis Vatrt; and from Peterborough, Colin Walsh.

Applause.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Last week, I had the chance to visit British Columbia and Alberta, well-managed western provinces. What I heard, interestingly, was that they want to see Ontario succeed, but they know from their own experience that in order to do so, you need to get your own fiscal house in order. I repeatedly heard the view, from businesses and political leaders out west, that when Ontario succeeds, all of Canada does well, by leveraging off all of our strengths and weaknesses.

But they want to see Ontario turn its economy around—the same theme I hear from families and business in Ontario, a theme that we share as Conservatives: to turn our province around and start by getting our fiscal house in order.

Will the minister do what British Columbia did and bring in a mandatory across-the-board public sector wage freeze to get our fiscal house in order?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Actually, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia has now had to deal with court rulings with respect to their actions that bring into question their ability to implement.

We are in fact moving forward with a good plan. Although I’ve not had a chance to meet with the new Premier of Alberta or the new finance minister, I’ve had the opportunity in the past. I’ve met with the Premier of British Columbia and the finance minister there. Like governments around the world, they are having some success. They have challenges as well. We welcome their success because all of our provinces doing well makes a better country.

The economy of Ontario: They’re absolutely right. It is the leading economy. It’s about a strong country. It’s got strong leadership on this side of the House. It’s building a better future, and we’ll have a chance to talk more about that in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’m pleased to hear the minister say that they now want to see the west succeed because certainly Premier McGuinty had jumped on the bandwagon with the federal NDP leader, Thomas Mulcair, in running down the west.

We disagree, Speaker. We want to see a proud, confident, prosperous province of Ontario that is astride Confederation, creating jobs and investment. We don’t want to engage in the politics of envy of the Ontario Liberal Party. We want to see a strong, confident Ontario that’s leading Canada again.

The minister mentioned Finance Minister Kevin Falcon, whom I met with when I was in Vancouver. He said to me that BC wants to see a strong Ontario, but this means Ontario must get its fiscal house in order, and that means a credible plan to get its budget back into balance.

British Columbia did so: a public sector wage freeze for all; no exceptions, no special deals. That, in Ontario, would save us $2 billion per annum. My colleague from London–Middlesex, Mr. Yurek, has brought forward a private member’s bill to do just that. I salute him. Will you support this initiative?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: No. I wish, though, that the Leader of the Opposition, as he’s singing the praises of British Columbia and Alberta, would stop slagging Ontario and the people in this province.

Let me just remind him that Ontario, in the last two months, is now leading Canada in employment growth. Since October 2003, 547,000 net new jobs. Just last week, the expansion of Highway 407 east: 900 direct jobs—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I don’t expect any noises when I stand, and I would ask that I be able to hear the answer.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Cliffs Natural Resources investment of more than $3.3 billion and 1,100 jobs, Mr. Speaker—this province is a leader in Confederation. It has been, it continues to be and it will lead in the future under the strong leadership of Premier Dalton McGuinty and this government, as we move back to balance and protect the investments we’ve made in health and education to ensure a better future for all of our children.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I think, Speaker, with respect to the finance minister, what he said is not in keeping with the facts. This much-promised Ring of Fire project hasn’t happened, because the government keeps getting in the way.

We’re proud of the province of Ontario. We believe that better days are ahead of us. Ontario PCs want to make us a leader again, not a laggard in Confederation.

So what happened? They took an historic strength of affordable energy and turned it on its head to the highest energy costs now for business in Canada and soon North America. They increased taxes, and they plan to do that again. They brought in the biggest deficits in the history of the province, heading towards tripling the debt in our province.

That is the wrong approach. We reject it. We want to see a pro-jobs, pro-growth agenda, to move beyond BC, to move beyond Alberta. We want Ontario to be the leader again in Confederation, and that starts with a mandatory public sector wage freeze. The bill is on Thursday. We’re behind it. Won’t you get behind it and save the taxpayers $2 billion each and every year?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Leader of the Opposition neglected to mention that we’ve now had 6.4% growth over the last 10 quarters since the recession, which is very strong, given our particular circumstances. One welcomes the success of our western provinces; they’re oil-rich, natural gas-rich, potash rich, and it’s good to see them succeeding, Mr. Speaker. It’s good to have a country that’s growing.

As we address the challenges in this economy, we think it’s important to invest in post-secondary education to have the best workforce in the country. The census numbers today pointed to the fact that Ontario’s economy again is growing, our population is growing. Even though we have challenges with aging, Mr. Speaker, this is still a magnet for people from all over the world, not just here in the GTA but right across Ontario. That’s the strength of this economy, Mr. Speaker. That’s the future, a future that’s in good hands with Premier Dalton McGuinty and his government.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the finance minister and his Pollyanna view of the economy in Ontario. Sir, we’ve been behind in job creation and unemployment for 65 consecutive months. We’ve had a higher unemployment rate than the national rate. That has never happened in the history of Canada, never happened in the history of the Confederation. That’s not the kind of Ontario we want to see. We want to see an Ontario that leads Canada again—the best place to find a job and to start a business.

It’s very unfortunate when Premier McGuinty has quotes like the following: “I think we need to find a way to help western Canada move beyond an economy that is overwhelmingly based on pulling stuff out of the ground. That’s causing harm to our collective future.” The arrogance of that statement is breathtaking. It shows a Premier who is dramatically out of touch with real-world economics, and it’s frightening how it echoes the far left and M. Mulcair from the federal NDP.

We see a different view. Instead of the politics of envy, we want to see the politics of confidence in Ontario; lower, more affordable energy and an understanding that oil sands jobs also create jobs in the province of Ontario. But first, make us open for investment. Make us strong and make us confident. Lower taxes in the province and get these books back into balance. Don’t you agree, Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: All right, so let’s talk about where Ontario leads, because the Leader of the Opposition, while he’s out promoting Alberta and British Columbia, ought to be thinking about promoting Ontario and Ontario jobs. Mr. Speaker, for the eighth year in a row, the largest auto sector in North America, and this government helped keep it on its feet, right here in Ontario; the fastest clean energy sector in Canada; our financial services sector has gone from 13th-largest to 10th-largest in the world. We’re proud of our investments. I’m proud to be on that panel. I’m proud the Premier led the effort to do that.

We are now ranked as the favourite destination for foreign investment in North America, second only to California. Our biotech, information, communications technology and film industries are in the top three in North America.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, KPMG ranks Ontario fourth in business costs among nine mature economy countries.

That’s a record to be proud of. This is a province to be proud of—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Stop the clock. Be seated, please.

I’m going to offer all members a recommendation and advice again: When I say, “Thank you,” that means you’ve used up your time to either answer or ask a question.

Supplementary: Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’m certainly proud of the province of Ontario, but I’m not proud of what this government has done to it—higher taxes, unaffordable energy.

Let me drag the finance minister back to the real world here. Over the last five years, over 215,000 people have actually moved from Ontario to BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan—215,000 men and women who couldn’t find jobs in the province of Ontario who had to move out west.

And the minister touts his Green Energy Act. One business leader in British Columbia said the following about the Green Energy Act. He said it was the most “bizarre, crazy, and possibly the worst piece of public policy in Canadian history.” That has been a disaster.

Minister, it is time to take a different path, one of lower taxes, flexible labour markets and controlling government spending, beginning with a public sector wage freeze for all of us. Better days are yet to come in the province of Ontario, but if we get the fiscal policies right. Get our fundamentals right, like these good Conservative policies, to make Ontario a leader again.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Be seated, please.

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Well, I prefer the Premier of Ontario to the Premier of British Columbia any day, and I take his word, Mr. Speaker.

And I’ll tell the Leader of the Opposition, you are denigrating Ontario. You’re running it down. You’ve been running it down in New York, in Alberta and British Columbia. Stand up and speak positively about the growth in our economy. Start speaking positively about our auto sector, our banks, our financial institutions. Start telling the complete story about net immigration to Ontario. We know you opposed certain tax credits in the last election. We’ll be bringing—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will now start identifying individuals. As I said yesterday, I thought we would be able to get a little further into this.

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: You don’t even welcome new immigration to Ontario. When we bring forward the tax credit that you spoke so passionately against, we’ll see where you stand on that, because new Canadians, new immigration, are helping to build this economy, to grow it. It’s part of our vibrant future that’s being well led by the Premier of Ontario with a strong plan to get us back to balance, and protect our schools and health care as we move forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the minister: The sad reality is that new Canadians are increasingly choosing BC and Alberta and Saskatchewan, and Ontario is falling behind. They’re joining the 215,000 women and men who have left Ontario to find work somewhere else.

The finance minister is bankrupting our province, and he wants to talk about who is running Ontario down. The McGuinty government is running Ontario down: more than half a million unemployed, record deficits and debt, uncontrolled spending, trailing the country in job creation, three downgrades to our credit rating, and 65 consecutive months with higher unemployment.

Surely there is a better path, one based on lower taxes, affordable, reliable energy, a modern apprenticeship system to create jobs in the skilled trades, and getting our books in balance. That’s the path the PCs see, a path to prosperity, a better Ontario, to bring those folks back from BC, Alberta, back home to Ontario—an Ontario that leads Canada again.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Be seated, please. Can we assume on both sides that you’re going to applaud after everyone and then not do it? Thank you.

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I suppose the Leader of the Opposition is going to find potash, oil and natural gas somewhere in Ontario. He is completely inaccurate in his portrayal of Ontario. Those provinces have growing economies resulting from a natural resource abundance.

But let’s talk about our natural resource abundance, Mr. Speaker. I spoke of the Ring of Fire. Let’s look at some new operations that are coming online: Rainy River Resources, a gold mine in Kenora, a potential to create 1,200 jobs—600 construction, 600 full time; Rubicon Minerals in Kenora–Rainy River; the Goldcorp Bruce Channel gold deposit. The list goes on and on.

The Leader of the Opposition may choose to run down Ontario. We choose to build a better future. Some 42% of new Canadians land right here in Ontario, and we’re going to welcome them with tax credits that that leader and his party oppose. This is the party of the future, with a bright future—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Renfrew, come to order.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: —for Ontario and a strong economy with good schools, good health care and—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Simcoe North come to order.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: —a balanced budget.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question?

ONTARIO BUDGET

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance dismissed concerns that were raised in a legal brief about the government’s 300-page omnibus bill. Does this government have an independent legal opinion of their own to back their

interpretation of the bill?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In fact, I didn’t agree with the legal opinion that was put forward. The characterization that the leader of the third party brings with respect to the budget bill is not accurate. In fact, most of it deals directly with ServiceOntario. About a third of the entire budget deals with ServiceOntario alone.

In fact, if you take that portion out—and it’s an important portion, which, again, we signalled in the 2010 budget; we studied and moved forward on. If you take that out, it’s one of the smaller budget bills. The schedules are dealing with relatively routine matters and when one looks at the history of budget bills over time, in fact it’s relatively small.

Mr. Speaker, we are moving forward on that budget. It’s the right plan for Ontario’s future. It’s about getting back to balance and it’s about keeping the investments in health and education that have made our system—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday, the minister didn’t dispute that the bill in fact handed cabinet, and the Minister of Finance in particular, broad new powers. The government claims that these powers are not going to be used for a fire sale, Speaker, so what exactly do they need these powers for?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, first of all, there’s not one

schedule in the budget bill that isn’t referenced directly in the budget itself. Perhaps they didn’t see that between the time they were briefed on March 28 and the time they reached an agreement with us on April 23.

Again, this House passed a motion that approved the budgetary policy of the government of Ontario. We’re moving forward on that. We incorporated close to $1 billion in changes resulting from the agreement that we had reached with the leader of the third party. The budget is the right course of action that will get us back to balance as we protect the important investments we’ve made in health care and education.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, I don’t recall getting an answer to my question. All I did was ask what these broad new powers are for. What does the Minister of Finance want these broad new powers for?

Ontario’s Ombudsman has also raised concerns about provisions in this bill and says the bill creates oversight erosion and allows for new Ornge-like organizations operating outside of public scrutiny. Can we get the names today of the agencies that will be enforcing government legislation outside of public scrutiny?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To characterize this as being less public scrutiny is factually wrong, Mr. Speaker, number one. Number two, we have a bill before the House today that deals specifically with Ornge. We would like to get it passed, Mr. Speaker. It deals with enhanced accountability.

This is the government that brought freedom of information and privacy legislation to bear on the hydro agencies, which the previous government had kept hidden in a—didn’t want to be seen, for obvious reasons. It became known afterwards.

The addendum to this year’s budget is one of the most far-reaching and transparent documents, new initiatives in the budget that identify line by line where money and program savings are coming from. It was borrowed from—I know they like to quote the Obama administration. It was taken right from the Obama administration’s budget documents, Mr. Speaker.

So it’s about transparency; it’s about accountability; it’s about getting back to balance and, most importantly, protecting the investments we have made in health and education, for a better future for all Ontarians.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Acting Premier. Serious concerns are being raised about a bill that seems to give the minister and the government a lot of new powers to make decisions that affect people’s lives behind closed doors. And instead of answering basic questions, we get a lot of the same old tired politics from across the way. People deserve better in this province, Speaker. Can the minister explain, straight and clear, why he needs the sweeping powers the omnibus bill gives him and what he intends to do with those powers?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I would urge the leader of the third party to review the advice she has had from her loan guarantors and would just refer her to sections in the act that deal specifically with a number of things. Services under the proposed act would be provided in accordance with service agreements.

Significant conditions and restrictions are imposed in the following way: appointment of auditors for a non-share corporation; of minister-issued policies and directives to the board in a non-share corporation; significant powers over a corporation’s ability to establish, acquire, wind up, dispose or otherwise deal with a subsidiary, a partnership, a trust or any other entity; and to impose accountability and performance requirements on a service provider and requirements to submit to inspections, reviews and audits by the minister or a delegate, Mr. Speaker.

The act also would impose on a service provider the provisions of Ontario’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act regarding collection, retention, use and disclosure of personal information.

It is, in fact, accountable. It is sweeping in its accountability. Your

interpretation is wrong. You ought to sit down with your loan guarantors and get it—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, the problem is that all the of this stuff that he just quoted can be done by ministers and their delegates, not done in the accountability of this Legislature, which is the problem.

Over the last three months, the people of Ontario have seen first-hand what happens when we ignore oversight and accountability. The waste and mismanagement at Ornge happened because this government decided that public scrutiny was not important.

I think that if the people of Ontario and if the members of this Legislature saw memos like the one that was revealed yesterday, our ambulance service might not be in the mess that it’s in today, Speaker.

If the minister says he doesn’t want another Ornge, is he willing to admit that his 300-page omnibus bill needs some changes?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, we have said, right from the beginning, we welcome amendments to the bill, as long as it protects the substance of the motion that was passed by the Legislature. We would like to get the bill into hearings. I know the government House leader is working diligently to do that. I believe we’ve tabled a time allocation motion that provides significant public hearings on the budget, and we would welcome amendments to make the budget bill better.

But make no mistake, we are simply moving forward in a way that we’ve always moved forward. In fact, this bill provides much greater accountability than has existed up to now, not just for agencies of the government, but also for any future arrangements that may or not be made with private sector delivery of services that are presently delivered publicly.

We welcome getting this bill to committee, getting it passed, and would likely accept amendments to the substance of the bill.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The people who make this province work every day expect their government to spend public money wisely. They understand that they live in tough times and that we all live in tough times, but they also see that shortcuts like Ornge don’t save money. They do the exact opposite.

Is the minister ready to look at changes to his omnibus bill that will ensure proper oversight, transparency and accountability?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have those provisions built into the bill. If the leader of the third party has ways of enhancing that, yes. If, in fact, she’s saying that there’s no opportunity for further outsourcing and so on, no, we don’t agree with that, because, frankly, a number of government services are not efficiently delivered. And so we look forward to enhancing the accountability provisions in the bill. We hope that we can get agreement to move the bill to committee and to get the budget bill passed.

So to the leader of the third party and her loan guarantors, I say, yes, indeed, we will look at those amendments. But make no mistake, this is the right plan for Ontario’s future. You agreed to it last month. You ought to keep your word to the people of Ontario.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Minister of Health. Yesterday, we revealed that the Premier and his cabinet approved the Mazza scheme against the advice and warnings of senior civil servants. The minister in her response said this: “It’s clear that with the benefit of hindsight we would have had a stronger performance agreement.”

Speaker, what’s clear is that even hindsight can’t help this minister to get it right. Given the alarming number of calls to which Ornge has not been able to respond because of down-staffing and unqualified staff being available, one would have thought that the most important change to the performance agreement would be to entrench clearly defined service levels in that agreement to which Ornge could be held.

Speaker, I’d like to know from the minister, why is there no reference in that performance agreement to specific service levels to which Ornge would be held accountable?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: There are significant changes under way at Ornge, and we are absolutely committed to strengthening oversight at Ornge and to improve the quality of care that patients are receiving. One of the ways we’re doing that is by collecting information that was not previously collected on a range of issues.

I’m very pleased that Bruce Farr has joined the leadership team at Ornge. He has a long history working with Toronto EMS. He started as an ambulance driver in Scarborough. He moved to the training division and was eventually promoted to the position of chief and general manager. He retired from that position and is now in a leadership role at Ornge. His experience in providing strategic direction, operational planning and leadership will prove indispensable. We look forward to continuing to strengthen—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew is now warned. To be clear, the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, repeatedly in this place we’ve heard from the minister that the new performance agreement will set standards. She now—the minister—has refused to respond to my very specific question about levels of service that should be defined in that performance agreement. I quite frankly don’t care how many new people are there; I want to know what the minister is doing about incorporating levels of service into the performance agreement to which Ornge can be held. Speaker, there are none. I’d like to know from the minister why not.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. The member from Halton, come to order.

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Again, I never tire of reminding the member that a committee of this Legislature, the public accounts committee, is seized with this matter, and if he insists upon holding hearings on the floor of the Legislature, as I said, there are a variety of issues that we want to talk about on this side. For example, why did Ornge locate its headquarters in Oshawa instead of Peterborough, against the advice of senior Ornge executives, when we find out that there was lobbying on the part of the Conservatives? We will ask about Kelly Mitchell and the work he did in terms of lobbying the Progressive Conservative Party, putting together—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question.

LOBBYISTS

M me France Gélinas: J’aimerais diriger ma question au premier ministre par intérim. Last week, the Integrity Commissioner called for a series of changes to the Lobbyists Registration Act in light of the scandal at Ornge. Her first recommendation is that her office be given investigative power and the power to issue penalties. Would the Deputy Premier agree to make these changes?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We take all of these issues very seriously. I’m proud of our record in bringing enhanced accountability to this government and to all public services. We will look at those carefully and give them due consideration over time.

I’m proud of the fact that we have enhanced the coverage of freedom of information and privacy, that we have made efforts to improve the sunshine list and a number of other things. There’s always more to do and we welcome thoughtful input to these important pieces of legislation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Thank you for the answer, but by the actions of the party on the other side, it looks like they’re worried that those new powers will reveal too much about their government relationship with well-connected insiders. Through Ornge—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Peterborough, come to order.

M me France Gélinas: —we now all know that the former president of the Liberal Party of Canada, Alfred Apps, and the Premier’s close adviser and campaign manager, Don Guy, say they were not lobbying, although we now have an ever-growing body of evidence that suggests that Mr. Apps was setting up meetings with the Premier’s office, that Mr. Guy was making calls on behalf of Ornge.

We need to know the truth, Mr. Speaker, and if the law was broken, there should be a penalty. Will the Deputy Premier agree to fix the Lobbyists Registration Act so that the registrar can investigate and put a penalty on people who break the law?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Government Services.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: As the member knows, the Integrity Commissioner is an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly. I have met with her and she has made some recommendations. We are looking at it very carefully, and we will evaluate those recommendations and then we will proceed accordingly.

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. Ontarians want high value for their government services. They expect those services will be delivered in a way that fits their lifestyle. Since 2006, about 13 million Ontario residents have used the new ServiceOntario for a variety of services: birth certificates, marriage certificates, health cards, driver’s licences, licence plate renewals, even fishing and hunting licences.

ServiceOntario has made a lot of improvements in their conscious effort to go “green,” but, Minister, what are you doing now to make ServiceOntario even easier to use for Ontarians?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I agree with the member from Willowdale completely, and I want to thank him for asking this question. We have made continuous and significant progress on how to deliver government services. We are now offering Ontarians even more choices. Now they have the option of signing up for getting e-notification reminders for renewals of their driver and vehicle licences. This is a very simple and environmentally friendly process. They can sign up by creating their own account at serviceontario.ca. This will make our notification process faster and can save our government up to $8 million.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. David Zimmer: Minister, I know you’re trying to get ServiceOntario to drive more and more traffic online. In fact, constituents up in Willowdale are very happy that ServiceOntario is expanding the services online—from 37 health-card-issuing offices to almost 300 across the province.

There are a lot of positive changes. There are nine different new service guarantees, and now we’re moving in this direction with the e-notification.

I know that other jurisdictions have been experimenting with this new e-notification application, but, Minister, what are your plans? Are we going to expand this e-notification? How’s it working out in Ontario? How’s it working out in other jurisdictions?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: The email notification process will be optional and was unofficially launched for real testing on March 12, 2012. Since then, approximately 10,000 Ontarians have already registered on email notification. Many enhancements that were identified during the user acceptance testing will also be implemented.

ServiceOntario is continuing to expand and enhance its online services in order to give Ontarians greater choices. This new service offering is designed to help busy families access government services around the clock, and their reminders will not be misplaced.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I want to say it will save the government up to $8 million. Some 6.5 million vehicle stickers and 1.5 million driver licences are renewed annually, and we are working very closely with the—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: Back to the Minister of Health: The most critical issue at Ornge is the fact that lives have been put at risk because of Ornge’s inability to respond. In the vast majority of cases, the reason for that is understaffing of qualified paramedics and pilots.

There was a time in Ontario when Ontarians could count on their air ambulance service to respond to both critical, advanced and primary care responses. Essentially, the fact that there is no reference in the performance agreement to either critical care response or advanced care response reduces our air ambulance to a very expensive medical limousine service. Is this the minister’s new vision of our air ambulance service?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would urge the member opposite to actually read the performance agreement. I would urge the member opposite to support Bill 50, legislation before this House that will enhance transparency and oversight at Ornge.

The new performance agreement will give Ontarians better air ambulance care. It appoints a new patient advocate, publicly posting the complaints process. There will be annual public surveys on performance. The member opposite wants performance indicators; so do we. They’re in the performance agreement. There will be improved reporting of emergency dispatch information, and we will be including cancelled and declined flights and land ambulance calls.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: These are all important enhancements to Ornge, and I really wish the member opposite would just support Bill 50.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Well, Speaker, you have called for an answer, I’m expecting an answer, and we’re not getting an answer to my question.

Not only is there no reference in that performance agreement to critical and advanced standards of care, I have it on good authority that Mr. McKerlie, the minister’s new CEO, has in fact now asked the ministry to water down the regulations governing paramedic qualifications. He is asking for regulations to reduce the requirement of having two paramedics down to one paramedic to qualify for an air ambulance staff. This contradicts even Ornge’s internal medical advisory committee.

Rather than demanding compliance with existing standards, the minister is now going to be complicit in actually compromising patient care. I’d like to know from the minister, why will she not, at least in this case, take the advice of her emergency health services branch, which is advising against watering down that regulation, and stand up for patient care—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, rather than dealing with hypotheticals, which the member opposite has become famous for doing, I think it’s important that we deal with the facts. The fact is, the members opposite are blocking passage of Bill 50. It is shameful.

Meanwhile, the front-line staff at Ornge are saving lives every single day. Just yesterday, the front-line staff at Ornge had one rotor-scene patient, 36 inter-facility transfers; 15 patients were transported by land ambulance, and 10 pediatric patients were transferred by Ornge.

The member opposite wants to criticize, criticize, criticize. Speaker, I think it’s time that the member opposite stood up and said thank you to the front-line staff at Ornge.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. New Democrats sought access to documents about why your ministry decided to sell Ontario Northland without a single word to northerners. Instead of getting information, we got pages and pages that were censored and blacked out. Minister, what are you and your government hiding from northerners?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Absolutely nothing. What we did was, in 2003, when we assumed power, we decided that we would be as creative as possible to try to make the ONTC sustainable. So what we did over the course of the next eight years was invest $436 million in the ONTC to try to make it sustainable, to try to make it viable, to try to ensure that it would meet the present and future needs of northern Ontario. Unfortunately, we realized that with a $100-million subsidy every year, this was not sustainable. The business lines are good; the business model isn’t. We’re looking for a new business model.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Vanthof: Speaker, with all due respect: Ornge—that was creative.

Minister, the censored documents date back to March 2009, well before the ONTC shops in North Bay lost the Metrolinx refurbishment contract. While this government was preparing to axe Ontario Northland, the minister was on hand in Sudbury to cut the ribbon on a new Ontario Northland Sudbury bus terminal. And while this government was consulting northerners on the northern growth plan, the fate of the ONR was already being decided.

Once again, Minister, why are you withholding information that impacts over 1,000 jobs across the north?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: The reality is, that’s the farthest thing from the truth. The facts have been laid on the table. The ONTC is not sustainable in its present form. The ONTC lines are good business lines. The ONTC business model is not a good business model.

Now, the NDP might think that you can sustain a $100-million subsidy to the ONTC over the next 2,000 years. The reality is, you can’t. So what we’re doing is building a transportation system that will meet the present and future needs and that will not be dependent on government sustaining it to the tune of $100 million plus, every single year.

FOREST FIRES

Mr. Jeff Leal: This morning, my question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, last week we saw how dangerous northern Ontario can be, despite its enduring beauty. The city of Timmins and Kirkland Lake declared a state of emergency when over 800 residents were asked to leave their homes. Tens of thousands more were put on high alert as large forest fires spread quickly throughout this region.

I know that the safety and well-being of Ontarians is a significant concern to our government. Even though steady rain and calm winds have brought some relief to the situation in the northeast, it is my understanding that communities are still on notice.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister share with this House the efforts of all those who have worked tirelessly to protect those people in northeastern Ontario?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I do want to thank the member from Peterborough for that very important question. Our thoughts have certainly been with the families and all those impacted by the major forest fires in northeastern Ontario this past week, particularly those in Kirkland Lake and Timmins.

I did get an opportunity to speak with Mayor Enouy of Kirkland Lake and Mayor Laughren in Timmins last week also and assured them that the safety and well-being of Ontarians is our number one priority, and we will continue to use all our resources to fight those fires.

Certainly, I know that they are very grateful, as we are, to the 1,300 firefighters and many more first responders who are standing on the front-lines aggressively battling the blaze, working long, hard hours to keep families safe. I think we have to thank the other provinces as well for bringing in their resources and their equipment to help us fight this major forest fire challenge.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Leal: I want to salute the minister for his great leadership in this particular situation. My supplementary is again to the Minister of Natural Resources. Thank you for the update on the status of these forest fires in northeastern Ontario. As stated earlier, 800 residents were forced to leave their homes due to the threat of forest fires. In these challenging and demanding times, it’s necessary that impacted communities are receiving adequate and timely information. They need to know when they are being evacuated, when they will be received and what their exit route is.

To the Minister of Natural Resources: Can you tell me how this pertinent information is being communicated, and what is the status of the evacuated communities?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Thankfully, weather conditions fell in our favour over the weekend, and the majority of evacuees have returned home. The safety of our citizens is paramount.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, you will be familiar with the case of Liam Reid, who is a two-and-a-half-year-old boy diagnosed with an extremely rare eye condition known as bilateral PFVS/Norrie’s. Without surgical intervention and treatment, most children with this condition are completely blind by the age of four.

In 2009, Liam’s ophthalmologist completed a prior approval application for out-of-country coverage so that Liam could be treated by a leading expert in Michigan, Dr. Michael Trese. Despite the fact that there’s no one in Ontario who is able to treat Liam and save his sight, his application for coverage has been denied. Minister, will you ensure that Liam receives the treatment he needs in order to preserve the little sight that he has left in his eyes?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the first thing I, of course, want to do is acknowledge that this is a very, very difficult case, and my thoughts are with the family and this little boy who is facing a significant challenge. I cannot, of course, comment on any specific cases, but I can say that we have a very robust out-of-country plan. We are bringing more services home. Bariatric surgery, for example, is being performed in Ontario now; it was not, prior to changes we’ve made. What I can tell you, Speaker, is that there is a process to get funding for out-of-country care, and I urge the family to continue with that process.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Minister, there is a patent unfairness here of which you are fully aware, given the voluminous correspondence that I’ve sent you on this subject. It has come to our attention that there is another child in Ontario who has the very same condition, who has been treated by the very same physician in Michigan for a number of years, who has received approval for out-of-country funding. If this is the case, there is absolutely no justification for the refusal of the ministry to approve treatment for Liam out of country.

This decision, Minister, as you know, means the difference between partial sight and total blindness for this child. Surely that’s what our health care system exists for: to treat children like this. Minister, will you do the right thing and grant approval for Liam’s treatment?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, these cases are very, very difficult. What I can tell you is, we have a very strong process in place where experts make decisions. It is not appropriate that politicians make decisions. I simply must rely on expert advice.

When there are doctors here in Ontario who can perform services, that work must be done—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Halton, a second warning.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —so again, my heart breaks for this child, for other people who are facing significant health challenges—

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: How many do I get?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No more.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —but we must have care provided in Ontario when that care is available in Ontario.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Yesterday, the Premier suggested that consultation is needed before requiring automatic sprinklers. The experts disagree with the Premier and the minister. This has been studied, literally, to death.

The experts already agree with four recent inquests calling for this. The Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, the Firefighters Association of Ontario, the National Fire Protection Association and the former Ontario fire marshal have all called for this legislation.

Why is the Premier and his government the only one standing in the way of bringing forward legislation to require automatic sprinkler systems in every Ontario retirement home—not a year from now, now.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: First of all, one death due to a fire is one too many. This minister here takes her job very seriously. I’ve been consulting with all the experts, including the fire marshal’s office and the chief fire-fighter of the province, and we are actually looking to speed up the consultation. As the Premier said yesterday, it’s very important to have it right, because a consultation on the state of our residences in Ontario—long-term-care residences and homes for special needs—we know how many we have, but we don’t know in what condition they are, so this technical consultation came from the experts. We need this technical consultation and they’re all with us—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: —to pursue this consultation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: Well, Minister, they disagree with you. It’s done. The consultations are done. The experts say move now.

You want to move quickly? Move Bill 54 forward, my bill. It has everything in it. The experts consulted with me. I’ve talked to all the experts.

This is another stall tactic. There’s nothing to prevent this government from moving on automatic sprinklers legislation now while continuing their talks with the experts. But the experts have already told me that there’s nothing more to say. Let’s get on with it. Let’s protect lives. You say you care about lives. Then put Bill 54 through and protect lives now, not a year from now when someone else will die.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I understand the passion of the member of the opposition and that’s his job to do that. My job as minister is to make sure that we do it right, that we do it with our partners.

We have done a lot—all parties across the way have been in power and what have they done? Nothing. This minister is taking her job seriously. We’re working with our partners and we will continue to—we need to know with the previous—Ontario is committed to working with its partners.

With the previous fire safety consultation completed, we have asked the Ontario fire marshal to conduct a technical consultation to identify fire safety improvements in residences.

One size does not fit all. What they’re proposing will close a lot of these residences in rural communities and in the north. So we have to have it right and we will do it.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the minister responsible for women’s issues. Sexual violence crosses all social boundaries, affects women of every age and cultural background and has devastating impacts on the lives of victims and their families. One third of all women in Canada have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16 and over 93% of reported adult sexual assault victims are female.

Our government has delivered on its commitment to protect women from all forms of sexual violence through Ontario’s sexual violence action plan, but breaking down language barriers for survivors of sexual assault is a key factor in ensuring that women have better access to the support networks that they need.

I ask the minister: What is being done across the province to ensure that survivors of sexual assault have access to social, health care and legal services in their own languages?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I thank the member from Oak Ridges–Markham for the opportunity to speak about an issue that’s very important to me, as I know it is for her.

With the launch of Ontario’s sexual violence action plan in March 2011, our government reaffirmed its commitment to prevent sexual violence, improve services for victims and strengthen the criminal justice system. The action included $15 million in investments over four years in public education, training and community services, and $3 million to Ontario sexual assault centres to help them better respond to women in their communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Breaking down language barriers for survivors of sexual assault is vital to ensuring that women can access the support they need. May is sexual violence prevention month, so this is a great time to speak about the thousand more of women a year who will benefit from this new investment to expand language interpreter services.

But it is vital that, in addition to providing support to victims of sexual violence, we also work to prevent sexual violence from occurring. I ask the minister: What is this government doing to prevent sexual assault and sexual violence from occurring in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: The member from Oak Ridges–Markham is absolutely right: Prevention is key. That’s why we work in collaboration and have worked with our partners, including the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres and Action ontarienne contre la violence faite aux femmes, for the development of prevention public education materials and the rollout of a province-wide training for front-line service providers in the community health, education and justice sectors. We’re also supporting public education campaigns to encourage men and boys to play an active role in preventing violence against women.

We work closely with our partners right across the province. We are pleased to have taken a collaborative approach and to have their support in the launch of the sexual violence action plan and the work that we have done and continue to do to prevent sexual violence in this province.

SKILLED TRADES

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, we’re all aware of the 1,000% increase your College of Trades is proposing to impose upon the journeymen and tradespeople for their certif